BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    Big Data Meets Big Green: Data Centers and Carbon Removal Compete for Zero-Emission Energy

    MapLab: Why More Americans Are Moving Toward Wildfire

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

    Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    Stop Losing Proposal Competitions

    Muir named Brown and Caldwell Eastern leader

    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

    Rather Than Limit Decision to "That Particular Part" of Developer's Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 05/04/22

    Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    Part I: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    Building in the Age of Technology: Improving Profitability and Jobsite Safety

    Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Decaying U.S. Roads Attract Funds From KKR to DoubleLine

    Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    Real Case, Real Lessons: Understanding Builders’ Risk Insurance Limits

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    BWB&O Partner Tyler Offenhauser and Associate Lizbeth Lopez Won Their Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Privette Doctrine

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium

    Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Focusing on Design Elements of the 2014 World Cup Stadiums
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects

    July 16, 2014 —
    Fox 28 news reported that “[t]he state of Ohio is going to spend more than $166,000 to inspect…the 40-year-old Rhodes Tower” in Columbus. "They're going to look at the exterior of the building - [at] sealants between the joints, the condition of the panels, the window systems, how they're draining, how they're operating, and how they're sealed," Ned Thiell, of Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, told ABC 6/FOX 28 news. A study completed last year declared there were “’deficiencies’ on the building’s stone covering” and there were “panels with severe fracture defects” that “will need to be replaced with new stone panels.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable

    August 22, 2022 —
    In Bain v. Airoom, LLC, No. 1-21-001, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 241, the Appellate Court of Illinois (Appellate Court) considered whether the lower court erred in enforcing an arbitration clause in a construction contract between the parties and, as a result, dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Appellate Court found that even if the arbitration clause was enforceable, the appropriate action would have been for the court to stay the lawsuit, as opposed to dismissing the case entirely. The Appellate Court then considered the language of the arbitration clause and found that several provisions were substantively unconscionable, which rendered the entire arbitration clause unenforceable. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court’s decision compelling arbitration and reinstated the plaintiff’s complaint. In 2018, the plaintiff, Ms. Bain, a disabled senior citizen, hired the defendant, Airoom, LLC (Airoom), to renovate her home. Airoom provided its “Cash Sales Contract,” which included a binding arbitration clause. The clause required that any dispute arising or relating to the contract be resolved by binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (AAA), using the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Construction Industry Rules). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    August 22, 2022 —
    Municipal ordinances may provide additional defenses for construction professionals where state law does not provide sufficient protection for Colorado’s builders. Colorado state law can be a minefield of potential liability for construction professionals. Even though the state legislature has stated that it must “recognize that Construction defect laws are an existing policy issue that many developers indicate adds to for-sale costs,” the legislature has remained hesitant to provide any meaningful protection from construction defect claims, resulting in almost unlimited exposure for Colorado’s construction professionals. Given this background of state laws that do not go far enough in protecting Colorado’s construction professionals, it may be fruitful to review municipal ordinances for new defenses and to temper state law developments applicable to construction defect claims. This is an area of law that is only just developing in Colorado. In fact, the ordinances discussed in this article were only passed in the last two years with many cities only adopting the present versions of the ordinances in 2021. The two model ordinances discussed below are potentially helpful in three ways. The first model ordinance gives construction professionals a right to repair defects in the multi-family construction and in the common interest community context. The second model ordinance is helpful in two ways. First, it establishes that homeowners associations may not unilaterally circumvent ADR protections included in the original declarations for such communities.[1] Second, the ordinance reduces the risk that strict liability will be imposed on a construction professional where a building code is violated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ricky Nolen, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Nolen may be contacted at nolen@hhmrlaw.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Secure Final Summary Judgment in Favor of Homeowner’s Insurance Company

    April 02, 2024 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in a bathroom of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home. The claim had been reported by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing parts that had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the drainage system had been completely removed and replaced. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the original plumbing components hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal. Meanwhile, the surface conditions of the white PVC pipe appeared bright and shiny as compared to other piping. The insured had also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    January 02, 2024 —
    Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    August 22, 2022 —
    After a hurricane damaged the building the insured was constructing, there was no coverage under the CGL policy for repairs the insured made in the absence of a suit being filed. Planet Construction J2911 LLC. v. Gemini Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105468 (W.D. La. June 13, 2022). Planet Construction was a general contractor hired to build a fitness club. On August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura struck the area. After the storm, a pipe in the sprinkler system broke, allegedly due to faulty materials and workmanship by a subcontractor, S&S Sprinkler. Planet Construction sought coverage under its policy with Gemini as well as under S&S's policy with Zurich. Both insurers denied coverage and Planet Construction filed suit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    August 19, 2015 —
    In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    January 15, 2014 —
    The family of Angel Garcia, a construction worker who fell to his death while working on Texas A&M’s football stadium (Kyle Field), has filed a $100 million lawsuit against six construction companies claiming inadequate safety policies, procedures, and negligence, Jordan Overturf of The Eagle reported. According to The Eagle, Garcia’s attorneys alleged, “[Garcia] was ‘catapulted off the edge of a fourth-floor ramp’ on the northeast side when a section of concrete fell onto the bucket of the skid steer-loader he was operating. The tractor hit a steel beam during the fall, which exerted enough force to eject Garcia from the tractor.” Garcia did not survive his injuries. The complaint claims the companies involved violated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and regulations. The defendants in the suit were unavailable for comment, according to The Eagle. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of